Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[CWS] skip raw packet event when no process context #31429

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 25, 2024

Conversation

safchain
Copy link
Contributor

@safchain safchain commented Nov 25, 2024

What does this PR do?

Do not forward rawpacket event to userspace when there is no process context. This should limit the performance impact. We'll remove this limitation later.

Motivation

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Functional tests should still pass

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@safchain safchain added changelog/no-changelog team/agent-security qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Nov 25, 2024
@safchain safchain added this to the 7.61.0 milestone Nov 25, 2024
@safchain safchain requested a review from a team as a code owner November 25, 2024 15:34
@github-actions github-actions bot added component/system-probe short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Nov 25, 2024
@safchain safchain force-pushed the safchain/nopacket-noctx branch from ec57f54 to 2ff516f Compare November 25, 2024 15:39
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Nov 25, 2024

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 49889749 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:
  • tests_deb-arm64-py3
  • tests_deb-x64-py3
  • tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
  • tests_rpm-arm64-py3
  • tests_rpm-x64-py3
  • tests_windows-x64

If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help

@@ -63,8 +63,10 @@ __attribute__((always_inline)) struct packet_t *reset_packet() {
}

__attribute__((always_inline)) void fill_network_process_context(struct process_context_t *process, struct packet_t *pkt) {
process->pid = pkt->pid;
process->tid = pkt->pid;
if (pkt->pid >= 0) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we reset pid/tid to 0 if not ? Network events are often generated from a PERCPU array entry, I'm worried "not writing" anything would keep garbage data from a previous packet.

@github-actions github-actions bot added medium review PR review might take time and removed short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Nov 25, 2024
Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Nov 25, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 2e3463b5-ebd3-4d68-a752-2747ab8ae0fe

Baseline: 88729a6
Comparison: 67ed721
Diff

Optimization Goals: ❌ Significant changes detected

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +10.94 [+7.26, +14.62] 1 Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +10.94 [+7.26, +14.62] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.18 [+0.13, +0.22] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.14 [+0.05, +0.24] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.04 [-0.62, +0.70] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.03 [-0.66, +0.72] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.00 [-0.78, +0.79] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.11, +0.10] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput -0.02 [-0.65, +0.61] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.09 [-0.87, +0.68] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput -0.15 [-0.92, +0.62] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput -0.27 [-0.73, +0.19] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.38 [-0.44, -0.32] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.88 [-1.02, -0.74] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -1.36 [-2.06, -0.65] 1 Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization -3.35 [-7.10, +0.39] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard

Explanation

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:

  • ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
  • ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
  • ➖ = no significant change in performance

A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".

For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:

  1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

  2. Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.

  3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@safchain safchain force-pushed the safchain/nopacket-noctx branch from 2ff516f to 67ed721 Compare November 25, 2024 17:57
@safchain
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Nov 25, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-11-25 18:41:37 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.


2024-11-25 18:54:56 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: merge request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 23m.

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 7e736b7 into main Nov 25, 2024
212 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the safchain/nopacket-noctx branch November 25, 2024 19:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog component/system-probe medium review PR review might take time qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/agent-security
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants